Replies

Certainly they are substantive. And I concur that they go to the heart of the matter. You can attribute Justin's silence to whatever motive you choose, but it will remain speculative.

If I might play devil's advocate for a moment, I'll take on the "Nay" side of this argument (against my own stance, by the way).

1. What makes you so sure that Al Qaeda alone -- without any helpers -- is solely responsible for 9-11?

I don't know that anyone has claimed al-Qaida alone is responsible for 9/11. I believe the statement is that no clear link has been established between al-Qaida and Iraq. Should the United States, on the strength of a supposition, break its precedent of eschewing pre-emptive war, or should a large burden of proof be required before we dash that precedent and attack a sovereign nation?

2. What makes you so sure that the U.S. government has no reasons of its own for undertaking this war? Why do you assume with apparently 100-percent certainty that our foreign policy is being dictated from Tel Aviv?

Iraq couldn't touch the United States with any of its ephemeral weapons of mass destruction. The only US ally threatened by Saddam is Israel; all other Middle East nations are sympathetic to the Iraqi dictator or neutral. What reason -- other than oil or Israel -- do we have for intervening in Iraq's affairs? And since Iraq will continue to sell us oil as long as our checks don't bounce, the motive must be our alliance with Israel. Either our aggressiveness is being driven from Tel Aviv or its agents in the United States.

The above opinions are offered in the interest of a thorough discussion. They DO NOT represent the views of this poster!!!!!

I agree that the main beneficiaries of an Iraq campaign are going to be Israel and Iran.

Unlike Gulf War One, no one is going to pay us for exposing our boys and girls to bullets and toxins. On the contrary, we are going to pay for the war, pay for bring 'the coalition of the willing' to act as if they are fighting the war with us, for Israel 'agreeing' to let us fight the war (not them), for scores of other beggar nations in the area and, at least in part, for re-building all the stuff we are going to break while at war and for maintaining the country occupied so that there will be some illusion of order in the country.

Meanwhile, both Israel and Iran, mostly Israel, are going to claim that they don't really like us taking care of their old enemy and are going to demand more and more payments and favors from us.

Meanwhile, I heard an interesting statement. Someone observed that all kinds of terrorists have been arrested in Europe since 9/11. They were Saudis, Pakis, Algerian, Egyptian... etc. There were ZERO Iraqis among them.

Does anyone know if any Iraqis have been arrested in relation to 9/11 anywhere?

<< ... no clear link has been established between al-Qaida and Iraq. Should the United States, on the strength of a supposition, break its precedent of eschewing pre-emptive war... >>

Personally, I find it very hard to believe that, at this late date, our government, with all the resources at its disposal, has not figured out everything there is to figure out about 9-11. I'm sure they have.

If they do not let us in on what they know, it is not because they are in the dark -- it is because they feel it is necessary or advisable to keep us in the dark.

In war, sometimes there are legitimate reasons for keeping the masses in the dark about important issues. I remind you of the "Ultra-Secret" of the Enigma Decoder during World War II.

I can only hope and pray that our government is keeping us in the dark today for good and legitimate reasons. Until given good reason to believe otherwise, I will continue to trust our president. What choice do we have? Hillary in 2004?

The fact is, we're both speculating. My speculation is based upon faith, hope and trust -- yours upon cynicism and despair. For both of our sakes, I hope that I am the one who turns out to be right.

<< Either our aggressiveness is being driven from Tel Aviv or its agents in the United States. >>

That is a most interesting analysis. But what real value does it have? Your analysis depends completely on your assumption that you are privy to all the facts. And obviously you aren't, because those who know the facts have not taken you into their confidence.

As the Chinese sage Lao-Tzu put it: "Those who know don't talk. Those who talk don't know."

If it is so easy to explain why nations go to war, perhaps you could explain to me why the United States entered World War I. I'm still trying to figure that one out.